Report of a Number of Meetings with Various Prisoner Groups

by

Mr. Alastair Coventry, Lay Observer.

My first meeting took place within the confines of ‘E’ Hall Recreation room. Two meetings, of approximately 45 minutes each were attended by eight and six prisoners respectively. After initial introductions were completed a vigorous discussion took place.

At the outset, my first impression of the general condition of the Recreation room was one of dismay. Taking into consideration the age of the building and its constant use by the inmates, I would have thought that the overall condition could have been a bit brighter and more in keeping with creating a relaxing environment, within reason. The availability of man power for a "Spring Clean" readily came to mind when very early on in our discussion it became apparent that several of those present were serving sentences of three to four years and taking into consideration their remission, the general view was that they were being left to serve their sentence in "no-mans land". There was no obvious motivation. There was plenty of speculation about transfer but, in the main, with the lack of work placements available, it was mainly a case of stagnation and boredom.

I got the impression, rightly or wrongly, that among their ranks there were a few who could be considered for open conditions. However, those present were convinced that there was no positive method of selection or consistent method of selection. In fact, on previous occasions, a few of those selected for open prison had been returned.

Of the courses available, a few prisoners had completed the cognitive skills programme and found it interesting and enjoyable. When I enquired about their reaction to the course content and what benefits they derived from it, the main response was the receipt of the certificate at the end of the course. The course was helpful but was there a follow up?

Where education classes were concerned, the standard on offer was quite good. However, owing to the large numbers attending, tutors had very little opportunity to put to use any particular talent which a participant showed.

There were questions asked about ‘C’ category prisoners who could not attend these classes because of the security risk. Although I enquired about this situation, there was no response.

Regarding the availability of shower facilities, it would appear that the average was one per week. Although, prisoners were of the opinion that depending on which "shift" was on duty this situation could improve.

Concern was also expressed about dinner trays being delivered by inmates who had previously been employed on less hygienic occupations, particularly when there was a lack of showers.

Food generally was cool when received and the containers were inefficient as far as sealing qualities were concerned. Also, on occasions they were not as clean as they should be. Any special diets recommended by the medical staff to an individual were not always delivered, thus causing a slight altercation between the resident and the staff!!

There were questions asked about the time factor in attending to emergency medical needs such as profuse bleeding of the nose through "natural causes" and consistent blinding headaches coupled with sickness. Perhaps a reasonable time scale for attending such emergencies could be reached.

When I suggested that these matters could be addressed to their Personal Officer, it would appear that there was no consistent pattern for communication. There appeared to be no rush to establish the "Grievance Procedure", as it was evident this was not being carried out.

One of the group who suffered from continual headaches over a period of time, and found no satisfactory help from the medical team, was finally advised to complete a form entitled "Confidential Medical Report".

The introduction of the new system for arranging visits was causing concern. There were instances when the use of phone cards were the only way to ensure that visits were "confirmed". On several occasions visiting relatives arrived unexpectedly, causing concern to the prisoner in terms of preparing himself for the visit. Remarks were also made about visitors being turned away and refused a visit because of failure to arrive at the appropriate time, with no alternative offered.

The atmosphere of the visit area would appear to be dominated by very close supervision by the staff during the visit. Whilst it was accepted that security was of prime importance, it was generally felt that the close proximity of staff was, on occasions, detrimental to the visit. Throughout the discussions, both groups of prisoners conducted themselves in an orderly manner while outlining their various opinions and were not without a sense of humour.

In contrast to the above meetings I was given a tour of two worksheds. The general impression was one of efficiency and a relaxed discipline overall. Well lit and bright premises with a working environment rarely found anywhere. The visual evidence suggested to me that the standards were as near to BS575 as one could get, with Health and Safety measures quite apparent.

A visit and discussion at Letham Hall was undertaken next . First impressions were of a neat and acceptable environment. Discipline was evident, but in a more relaxed manner, perhaps due to the facilities offered by this Hall.

Discussing matters with a group of six prisoners there were points raised to which reference has already been made. Some of those present had been transferred from ‘A’ Hall. The conditions prevailing in Letham Hall were more acceptable to them, and in fact, some were "frightened" by the contrast in ‘A’ Hall. It was surprising, therefore, that there appeared to be no induction informing them of what was expected and no assignment to a Personal Officer who could advise them regarding targets to be achieved including open conditions where applicable. Within this Hall with all its advantages, some form of sentence planning etc. would perhaps be more significant.

Regarding circumstances of the Young Offenders, the fact that they were in such an environment awaiting transfer would appear to give the staff a problem they could do without. The main issue would appear to be centred around toilet and exercise facilities, due to the variety in category of prisoners held there. Those held in the remand area of ‘C’ Hall were very critical of the conditions they were being held in. Basically, there was a lack of exercise, lock-up conditions for most of the day, and a lack of changes of underwear. On many occasions, only one change of kit per week. Again the visit facilities were severely criticised. The system of nominating eight people who would be potential visitors, without any authority to amend the list, did not go down too well. The only remand prisoners who could be assured of regular exercise were those who were selected for distribution of meals.

These meals were delivered to cells, left outside the doors and there were often frequent delays until the cell was un-locked before the meal could be taken in by the prisoners.

Short-term prisoners in ‘E’ Hall were in much the same frame of mind regarding visits, toilet arrangements etc., especially among those who through lack of work and purpose were locked up for periods of up to six hours during the normal working day.

On admission there was no programme offered to them, no social work interview and no system available for Personal Officers. Even the prospect of a possible release date, would compensate for the boredom of serving a short sentence.

At the completion of my two days discussing various points of view with inmates there was never any mention at all of the Prisons Complaints Commission which I found surprising! !